do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-265/16: Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Puratos and others v Commission
Date: 2016-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, abuse of power, control of State aid, corporation tax, fiscal policy, profit, reimbursement of aid








C_2016279EN.01003301.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/33





Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Puratos and others v Commission
(Case T-265/16)
(2016/C 279/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Puratos (Dilbeek, Belgium), Delta Light (Wevelgem, Belgium) and Ontex (Buggenhout, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

Defendant(s): European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;










—


in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium alleges the existence of an aid scheme.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision qualifies the purported scheme as a selected measure.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision orders Belgium to recover aid.
Case T-266/16: Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Capsugel Belgium v Commission
Date: 2016-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, abuse of power, control of State aid, corporation tax, equal treatment, fiscal policy, principle of legal certainty, profit, reimbursement of aid








C_2016279EN.01003401.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/34





Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Capsugel Belgium v Commission
(Case T-266/16)
(2016/C 279/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Capsugel Belgium (Bornem, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s Decision C(2015)9837 final of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme implemented by Belgium (SA.37667 (2015/C));










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the contested decision;










—


in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 107 TFUE.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state the reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using the State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7950 — EGB/GP) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, electronic money, financial services, merger control








C_2016188EN.01000101.xml










27.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 188/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7950 — EGB/GP)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 188/01)
On 19 April 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


In the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.










—


In electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7950. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-313/16 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2016 by Médis — Companhia portuguesa de seguros de saúde, SA against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 March 2016 in Case T-774/15: Médis v EUIPO — Médis
Date: 2016-05-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, electronic money, financial services, health care, insurance, registered trade mark, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2016475EN.01001002.xml










19.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 475/10





Appeal brought on 27 May 2016 by Médis — Companhia portuguesa de seguros de saúde, SA against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 March 2016 in Case T-774/15: Médis v EUIPO — Médis
(Case C-313/16 P)
(2016/C 475/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Médis — Companhia portuguesa de seguros de saúde, SA (represented by: M. Martinho do Rosário, advogada)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
By order of 19 October 2016 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8052 — SEGRO/PSPIB/SELP/Torino DC1) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, property leasing, real estate business








C_2016188EN.01000501.xml










27.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 188/5





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8052 — SEGRO/PSPIB/SELP/Torino DC1)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 188/05)






1.


On 19 May 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which SEGRO plc (‘SEGRO’, United Kingdom) and Public Sector Pension Investment Board (‘PSPIB’, Canada) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, through their jointly controlled joint venture SEGRO European Logistics Partnership S.à r.l. (‘SELP’), joint control over one future income producing logistics asset in Italy (the ‘Target Asset’), e.g. the logistics asset Torino DC1 located in Brandizzo in Italy, by way of purchase of assets.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for SEGRO: owning, managing and developing modern warehousing, light industrial and data centre properties,
—   for PSPIB: managing stocks, bonds and other fixed-income securities as well as investments in private equity, real estate, infrastructure and natural resources,
—   for Torino DC 1: warehouse and distribution centre to be leased to Decathlon Italia.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8052 — SEGRO/PSPIB/SELP/Torino DC1, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-264/16: Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Korea National Insurance v Council and Commission
Date: 2016-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: North Korea, data protection, economic sanctions, goodwill, international sanctions, ownership








C_2016287EN.01002401.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/24





Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Korea National Insurance v Council and Commission
(Case T-264/16)
(2016/C 287/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Korea National Insurance Corp. (Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Lester and S. Midwinter, Barristers, T. Brentnall and A. Stevenson, Solicitors)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/475 of 31 March 2016 amending Decision 2013/183/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/659 of 27 April 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in so far as those measures purport to include the Applicant in Annex V to Council Regulation EC 329/2007 and in Annex II to Decision 2013/183/CFSP;










—


order the defendants to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendants have failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants have manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case and that there is no factual basis for its inclusion.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants have breached data protection principles.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants have infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business and reputation.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-05-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016188EN.01000201.xml










27.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 188/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

26 May 2016
(2016/C 188/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1168 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,93 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4367 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,75970 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2870 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1075 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2470 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,023 




HUF


Hungarian forint


314,39 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4108 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5070 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2744 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5481 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4443 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6730 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6591 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5381 




KRW


South Korean won


1 317,87 




ZAR


South African rand


17,4165 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3237 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4951 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 192,39 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5435 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,131 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,7420 




THB


Thai baht


39,758 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0004 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,5139 




INR


Indian rupee


74,9155 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8037 — INCJ/Sumitomo/Sekisui/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-05-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, plastics industry








C_2016188EN.01000301.xml










27.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 188/3





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8037 — INCJ/Sumitomo/Sekisui/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 188/03)






1.


On 19 May 2016, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Innovation Network Corporation of Japan (‘INCJ’, Japan), Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd (‘Sumitomo’, Japan), and Sekisui Chemical Co., Ltd (‘Sekisui’, Japan) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of a newly created company constituting a joint venture (‘JV’, Japan) by way of purchase of shares. The JV will be active in manufacturing and sale of agricultural film, sealant film and other films.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for INCJ: promotion of innovation and business in Japan, review of various investment opportunities in the areas of clean energy, electronics, IT and biotechnology and infrastructure-related sectors such as water supply,
—   for Sumitomo: manufacturing and sale of a wide array of chemical products, including petrochemicals, plastics, energy, IT-related chemicals, health and crops, pharmaceuticals and others,
—   for Sekisui: manufacturing and sale of high performance plastics, urban infrastructure and environmental products, housing and others.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8037 — INCJ/Sumitomo/Sekisui/JV, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-302/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, sitting in Groningen (Netherlands), lodged on 27 May 2016 — Bas Jacob Adriaan Krijgsman v Surinaamse Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV
Date: 2016-05-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, contract of carriage, disclosure of information, electronic commerce, sales representative, traveller








C_2016326EN.01000902.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, sitting in Groningen (Netherlands), lodged on 27 May 2016 — Bas Jacob Adriaan Krijgsman v Surinaamse Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV
(Case C-302/16)
(2016/C 326/18)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, sitting in Groningen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bas Jacob Adriaan Krijgsman

Defendant: Surinaamse Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

Question referred

What (procedural and substantive) requirements must be imposed on the performance of the obligation to inform referred to in Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) in the case where the contract for carriage has been entered into via a travel agent or the booking has been made via a website?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Corrigendum to Commission Decision (EU) 2016/827 of 20 May 2016 on the renewal of the mandate of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (OJ L 137, 26.5.2016)
Date: 2016-05-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU institution, bio-ethics, consultancy, ethics, new technology, operation of the Institutions, scientific research








L_2016140EN.01002601.xml










27.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 140/26







Corrigendum to Commission Decision (EU) 2016/827 of 20 May 2016 on the renewal of the mandate of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 137 of 26 May 2016
)


The publication of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/827 is to be considered null and void.